#insulting frankly | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

sciderman · 1 year ago

Note

do you think Peter is naturally drawn to wade because he’s the one person in his life who essentially can’t get hurt in any universe.

Mj has almost died multiple times while dating Peter, Spider-Man saves her a lot and publicly speaks to her, that made her a target.

Gwen did die. And Peter being him, still blames himself.

Harry either goes crazy or dies, sometimes both.

Norman goes crazy and dies, all the time.

Aunt May is old, she’s not gonna be around forever and often times, she isn’t.

But Wade isn’t them, Wade is gonna be around forever. He’s going to be with Peter until the day he dies and the day Wade has to watch Peter die. Maybe it gives him some comfort, Wade can handle himself and even if he gets hurt, he always comes back from it. Yknow until eventually he doesn’t.

just silly thoughts 😋😋

those thoughts aren't silly! those thoughts are SAD!

i see this take in my inbox a lot and it's kind of the first reaction anyone ever has when first encountering spideypool – this is almost baby's first spideypool take, sorry anon. and for me, it's broke. it's a broke take.

"this one can't die" is a horrible reason to date someone, sorry. and the durability of said partner has never been a factor in who peter parker chooses to date.

i like to think peter's drawn to wade for a reason almost entirely opposite to that - he's drawn to wade because he's dangerous, not because he's safe.

i like to think he's into wade for the same reason he's into putting on tights and getting into fights. for the excitement. not because "this one can't die." i don't think that even comes into consideration for peter. and i don't want it to come into consideration for peter. it's such a horrible, awful reason to date someone.

i don't think peter even takes any solace in wade's immortality at all. wade can still get hurt. and peter will still, instinctively, jump in the line of fire for wade. it doesn't even come as a consideration for him, to just, you know, let wade get hurt, oh, because he can heal. no!!

peter isn't smart enough for that.

he thinks with his heart, not his head.

and i don't think peter even truly believes wade is immortal. i think he's seen enough superhero bullshit in his time to know nobody is truly immortal. and i think peter having lost so many people close to him - it doesn't allow him to feel in any way secure that his lover is immortal. anyone feels immortal at the time. until they aren't.

peter worries about wade. worries how reckless wade can be - how wade doesn't seem to care about the damage he sustains because he thinks he can heal but peter - peter doesn't see it as that simple. and he knows some wounds can't heal.

i even think - just a little bit, that wade's immortality might be something that - miraculously, peter feels guilty about. i think peter feels more worried that something will happen to him – spider-man - and he'll leave wade a widow. i think that's something he'll feel bad about. it's honestly why i haven't touched the idea of peter finding out he died in civil war - he'll bug his own head so much - not about his own mortality, but how guilty he feels to have left wade with all that trauma.

so no. no! wade's immortality does not give peter solace. it keeps him up at night if he thinks about it too hard. peter can't not worry, it's chronic. and for all the reasons he should be relaxed that wade can't die, he worries about it all the more.

#sci speaks #spideypool #sorry anon this take is one that i always shake my head at whenever i hear it #it's always the first thing i hear from people when they're first introduced to spideypool #they say “oh! that's perfect! at least deadpool can't die!”#like that's the only reason why they're good for each other. and that's so insulting to both of them #like peter can't keep any of his lovers alive so he shouldn't have love unless it's someone who can't be killed.#and wade has no desireable traits so his main selling point is that at least he can't die. so they're perfect for each other.#boo. bad take. 👎 so reductive. disrespectful to both of them.#frankly ! disrespectful !#they love each other because they're both loveable and they both deserve to be loved. also their suits match and that's cute.

112 notes · View notes

lordadmiralfarsight · 6 months ago

Text

Trumpolitics and geopolitical implactions

Grrreeetings my dear students ! I AM RETURNED !!! With another lesson ! This time, some of you made the horrifying mistake of inciting my teaching urge on the geopolitics of trump drooling on Greenland, and I decided I would take a good long look at that AND at other targets of potential expansion for the USA. I am sorry to inform you that memes will be sadly not that present in the first two points, because they're where I put down the structure of this thing. First off, Context ! 1) The Context As you may have seen, Trump has recently been on a tweeting spree about territories he'd like to add to the USA or bring under control in some way. From calling Canada the 51st state to claiming that controlling Greenland was "an absolute necessity", and even making open threats to Panama about taking back control of the Canal of Panama.

And considering what is being looked at, I'm going to add Mexico to the mix, because it's been targeted with threats of invasion-and-or-intervention to deal with the Cartels. 2) The Goals The goals of all these outside operations can fit in a clean-enough categorization : - Security : this is about protecting US security against an external threat, whatever form it may take - Ressource availability : the access to the territory's ressources is important to Trump or his administration - Trade control : the territory offers the ability or potential to control global trade routes Those are the three big geopolitical aims of an expansionist policy in regards to the USA. Other countries, such as Russia for instance, could have demographic aims to counteract a demographic collapse, but that's not the case of the USA. Of course, there's also Trump's personnal goal, common among strongmen : looking like a badass warmaster that does war so good and is so successful, wow, such medal, much military.

3) Oh, CANADA ! Canada, land of snow and forests, maple syrup and poutine, land of the eh and dedicated contributor to the expansion of the Geneva Convention. Trump has been pretty insistent on "joking" about it becoming the 51st State, despite a great many Canadians signaling very loudly that they do not find it funny. On one hand, making insulting jokes about your allies and ignoring their protests and then wondering why you aren't popular is violently American (As a French, I have close to 18 years of personnal experience on that), but on the other, this is Trump, so is it really a joke ? So, what would be the benefits of invading Canada ? Well, they would be many from a geopolitical point of view. It"s just that there are as many, or more, inconvenients. The big question being, will Trump even LOOK at those inconvenients ? But that's for later. First off, resources. Canada is ridiculously resource rich, owing in part to its very large size. I'm sure you've seen a few memes about Americans finding the biggest deposit of X or Y resources at random, well the only reason Canada doesn't do that too is because it is far less populated and its population is far more centralized. But the potential is there, absolutely. And even better, those resources are VERY varied : minerals, hydrocarbons, and absolute fuckton of wood and, perhaps less often thought about, fresh water. So on that front, Canada would undeniably be a very attractive catch. Second, security. Canada would allow the USA control of roughly a third-to-half of the entire Arctic region, allowing extensive protection of the northern flank, something that may be of interest in current times due to how light and under-strength the Canadian armed forces are, which also serves to make it a (seemingly) easy target to occupy. Third, trade control. Oh that's right, Canada has the trifecta. See, with the Arctic melting, the near-mythical North-West passage is opening, allowing for way faster transit from the Bering straight to the Atlantic, and yes this is damn important, the Panama Canal was opened in part because that passage didn't exist, but now it does for longer and longer periods of time, and Canada controls roughly 80 to 90% of its length. And control of that trade route means cash from ships that take it (taxes, maintenance, rescue when need be ...), it's a whole thing. A minor interest, though not put forward by Trump would be the "natural borders" approach, or territory continuity. Basically, considering that Canada is, by its geographical situation, American territory-to-be. That's ... pretty disturbing, and like I said, Trump didn't put it forward, but keep in mind it's part of the debate.

Now, for the inconvenients, which uh ... well they aren't few. First off, Canadians. The "eh" dudes are often represented as passive and friendly and polite, but they are certainly not interested in becoming Americans, especially by force, and considering just how many guns they have, well they have the means to make that displeasure known quite virulently. Which creates an entire administrative mess where they have to decide if they confiscate weapons inside Canada, or only those of Canadians, and what happens in the rest of the US, and what if ... so complicated. Messy. Either way, while the invasion wouldn't necessarily be that difficult (due to smol, US-dependant Canadian forces), the occupation would be WAAAAAAY harder. Especially since Canada is rather big and empty, giving PLENTY of room for partisan groups to spread, hide and ambush anyone that leaves urban centres. Second, Nato. Now, do I think Nato would mount a task force to push US troops out of Canada ? Lmao no, we're way too dependant on US security infrastructure for that. And since so many people still seem to think that, when France tries to push European strategic independance it's actually a French bid for control of the EU or us trying to shill our industries, well I don't see it changing without some major shock, even as things are. Poland does seem to be speedrunning this bitch though, so maybe we can do something there. But no, Nato wouldn't stop the invasion, but the invasion WOULD collapse Nato, and I can already hear the Vatniks and Tankies getting a stiffie just from imagining it.

Nato wouldn't survive because, in this scenario, the most powerful member of the alliance attacks another member. At that point, there's no confidence left, no trust, nothing. And that has ... rather big ... consequences. For instance, Russia feeling entirely uninhibited and allowed to invade as they please. To avoid that, the only option is to have a truly gigantic "fuck off" button, and only one such button exists : the nuclear one. So that's nuclear proliferation going back onto the table and at least half of the eastern part of the EU reaching for nuclear programs. Poland at the very least, Finland most likely can too. And then there's the rest of the World. Unless the French president at the time points out that our nuclear umbrella does actually extend over our eastern allies (it does) and actually manages to convince both Russia and our allies that it's true, and that's where I am profoundly unsure, considering how successful the US has been at propagandizing against France and presenting us as cowardly or unreliable. Remember when I said I had personnal experience with insulting jokes from the US ? At this point, I'm half convinced that the only way to convince Poland and co that we're reliable would be to help them develop nukes or just give them some, which ... same result anyway. So yeah, bad shit right there.

4) The land of LIES Greenland, or Groenland, an autonomous dependency of Denmark. A big place with not that much population. But, here again, geopolitical benefits can be found in taking it over : First off, resources. Though its resources aren't as varied as Canada's, Greenland is still very much a resource-rich place, and global warming makes more and more of those resources accessible, making it a very attractive target indeed. Security is the main reason put forth by Trump, and uh ... well it reveals a LOT in my opinion. See, the main security interest of Greenland is the ability to project control over one of the two main exits of the Arctic sea. With Greenland, Norway and Iceland, an arc is formed allowing control of that exit, as much as such a large span of sea can be controlled. The reason I say it's worrying is because there's already a US airbase there, Pituffik airbase, and Greenland is part of Nato. There's already an entire system in place to counter if the enemy is Russia. So the "absolute necessity" of controlling Greenland would indicate he has another enemy in mind. See why I'm worried ?

Now, would it be difficult to control Greenland ? No, not THAT much, it only has 57 000 people, so occupation wouldn't be too hard, hell, it would even be colonizable fairly easily. You know, the Russian model, displace parts of the local population to send them into the territory of the ethnic majority so as to isolate them, all while bussing in masses of ethnic-majority colonists to fill new jobs created by the occupation. Speaking of, Trump claimed Greenlanders wanted the US there, which contradicts local testimonies and declarations. Hmm, a strongman leader claiming a foreign territory for "security reasons" and saying the locals want his troops there, where have I seen that rethoric before .... Of course, here, we also see the collapse of Nato, with similar, or identical, consequences. It's possible, but rather unlikely in my opinion, that the Danish government could sell Greenland to maintain the illusion of still having Nato, but like I said, I don't buy it. Once again, Nato would have no real way of stopping it, since the US are the big fish in this pond.

And now that we've seen the two scenarios where Nato collapses, what would that mean for the US ? A whole lot of bad, actually. Because, see, if the USA feel free to invade Nato allies, then their military bases become liabilities, pre-established beach-heads from which they can prepare and launch offensives. So that would mean most, if not all, US bases in Europe getting closed damn near overnight, an d a rather difficult to manage diplomatic mess. That could also spook non-Nato countries into kicking out US forces, reducing the power projection capabilities of the US tremendously. Once allied ports would close to their ships, like the many, many, many French and British naval bases spread all around the globe that the US navy can use to resupply, refuel and rest. Airbases would close, forcing longer, more logistically difficult flights ... There's also the breakdown in training agreements, like the agreement that allows US special forces to train in the jungles of Guyane. Bet you didn't know about that. And then there's the military supplies in terms of equipment that becomes uncertain, because yes, the US military doesn't buy exclusively American, for instance they love Thales radars, which are French. And yes, they also buy from other European countries, it's just that since I'm French, I mostly think of French exemples. Fellow Europeans, add in the notes what you country produces that ends up on the US military shopping list ! So yes, while the collapse of Nato would leave Europe damn near butt naked in the face of Russian aggression, with no other option than to go balls to the walls, it would also hamper the US rather severely.

5) Panama, the Canal The Canal of Panama was made by the US, completed in 1914, and apparently Mister Trump wants it back because, le gasp, China allegedly has too much influence on it and, le gasp², US ships pay fees like everyone else. The Canal is, all things considered, the most straightforward option. It has one benefit only : trade control. But considering the location, that benefit is sizeable and long lasting. See, the Panama Canal is a reliable and rather safe option when compared to the intermitent and iceberg-filled Northwest Passage and the shit-weather festival that is the Cape Horn (which can also have icebergs, yay), so it's basically a guarantee for LOADS of maritime trafic. Control of that canal would allow to levy fees and, potentially, block passage to the ships of rival polities, like, say, China. Except China already has routes to feed its products to Europe and Africa that don't go through Panama, and for the eastern part of South America, I can absolutely see them throw a giant wad of cash at yet another pharaonic railway project. Not immediate, but not impossible either. And if it goes into the realm of dick-measuring contests (it will, Trump is involved), Xi absolutely will, on principle.

That doesn't mean control of the Canal isn't interesting, it absolutely is, but it's not AS interesting as he perhaps thinks.

And then there's the issue of Panama not being particularly enthused by the idea, weirdly enough. Would Panama's regular military be able to stop Trump ? Haha, no. I don't have any illusions on that, you don't, and I guarantee that Panama doesn't either. What they CAN do, however, is make it unsufferable to use. Cause collapses, force ships out of alignment to Evergreen it up in this bitch, guerilla-warfare patrols into an early grave, loads of stuff. And they would have volunteers from a lot of Latin America, due to flashbacks of US-backed dictatorships giving motivation to a lot of people.

In short, it would be a forever war for control of a string of water that would quickly end up costing a LOT more, in cash and lives, than it brings. 0/10, do not recommend, would not imperialism.

6) Mexico, Cartel time Ah, the Cartels, Mexico(s number 1 problem, and a big talking point for US conservatives. They have floated the idea of sending the military to deal with them several times, and it was even suggested recently to classify them as terrorists to justify the military intervention.

Here, again ,there's a single interest : security. The idea being that, if you off the drug dealers, then drugs won't be a problem anymore. Surely this simple and obvious reasoning has no flaw to it, right ? Well … First off, Cartels aren't easy to manage, due to how spread out they are. Then there's the fact they are rather heavily armed, which is part of why Mexico hasn't been able to deal with them. Cartel armories include some heavy weapons, and I can GUARANTEE that they've expanded those armories in preparation of a potential US army intervention, and that WILL include US weapons. So if that happen, prepare for the humiliation of losing Abrams tanks to gangers. Moreover, the afforementionned US-based trauma would also awaken here, ensuring that, despite how unpopular they are, the Cartels WOULD receive volunteers to reinforce them, simply on the basis that they'd be fighting an expansionist US.

Now add in that they have people inside the US, not just direct network members, but also affiliates and customers. Those groups are also violent and armed, and can be agitated fairly easily. If the US launch a military attack on the Cartels, I expect those affiliate gangs would mount assault on police precincts at the very least, and based on the performance of US cops at Uvalde and other cases, where they cowered when faced with a SINGLE assault rifle, I wonder how they'd react when faced by many, and potentially outnumbered. Would they all break and run ? No, most likely not. But enough would, since that would most likely happen all over the country. This would create a feeling of insecurity and danger that would be devastating for Trump. It would make him look weak.

So all in all, far from ideal.

7) The Rest of the Consequences

Yeah, I didn't look too much into the global effects … yet. Basically, Expansionist US = massive uncertainty, meaning economic confidence collapses, meaning stock prices go down in many places, economic paranoia blooms, worry takes hold of the planet and, oh would you look at that, a financial crisis. Is it a guarantee ? No, but depending on the scenario it's more or less likely. For instance, if it's the Greenland track, it's unlikely to cause a financial crisis, at least not immediately, it will have to wait until Nato openly and officially collapses (AKA the moment maintaining the charade isn't worthwhile anymore). The other three options though ? Yes. Canada is a major economic player, if it's invaded, economic actors will be scared. An invasion of Mexico is such a gigantic upheaval that it will cause shakeups in the worldwide economic network. And the Panama Canal being seized by a military intervention is basically like collapsing a cliff face into a fjord, the effect will be rapid, devastating and spectacular.

Then there's the loss of soft-power. In the first two scenario, the US immediately lose all credibility as an ally, anyone on their list of ally is informed that they'll be invaded the second it becomes beneficial, AKA an alliance with the US is utterly worthless, or even dangerous, unless you force yourself into a position where invading you is a waste (AKA poverty), and even then, your resources might spark an invasion anyway. In the last two, it erases all efforts made to improve and moralize the US foreign policy, and it severely weakens the diplomatic position of the US. Trump can negociate whatever he wants after that, it won't change the fact that trust in the US will drop severely, and yes that will include European countries.

8) conclusion Now, am I sure that Trump will invade someone ? Yes, but that's a personnal bias. There are no certainty until it's a done deal. It's possible that this is just Trump trying to be relevant, or like one of the linked articles said, trying to create chaos. But I'm not convinced. Trump feels empowered, allowed to do anything he wants. He won't feel like he has to hold back. So he may decide to actually invade a country. Do we have certainty on the consequences of such an invasion ? No, because here I looked only at the invasions and their geopolitical consequences if nothing else changes. The world is a constantly churning mass of variables that interact in exotic and sometimes very roundabout ways. But I think my analysis is solid and credible, and it would take a hell of a change for what I described her to not happen. I guess we'll have to see what Trump decides to do.

46 notes · View notes